Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

lol, no it doesn't. it depicts the braves as tribal and angry. you know, the warriors. it says nothing about the rest of them.

So let me ask you a question: what if our team name was something like the "Fighting Black Men" and our logo was an image of very stereotypical labels thrown on African-Americans (a 40 in a paper bag, drugs in his pocket, sagging pants and a pistol). Would you find that logo to be offensive at all?

Wouldn't phase me one bit if that happened. The nickname and mascot aren't the reason I became a fan.

I will respectfully disagree. When you hear or see BRAVES, it signifies a dominant Franchise that has been home to many greats. While it is theteam that I love, the name and brand just shows everyone else who we are.

What if Alabama got their own MLB team and decided to name them "Tuskegee Airmen" ? I would think that would be an honor.

How about if we expanded into Mexico and they had the "Mexico City Luchadors" ? It may seem silly to some, but is a seriously large part of their culture.

What if the Mariners want to change their name to the Samurai or Ninja ? People associated with one race, but also with being honorable warriors.

It's not racist. In fact, it's the opposite. These are people that we are "honoring" and bringing attention to. This isnt the 1800's. No one invisions Native American people as being savages that want to scalp you.

So let me ask you a question: what if our team name was something like the "Fighting Black Men" and our logo was an image of very stereotypical labels thrown on African-Americans (a 40 in a paper bag, drugs in his pocket, sagging pants and a pistol). Would you find that logo to be offensive at all?

The real issue here is whether or not the intent is to honor or demean a particular culture. As clever and or sophisticated as we have become it sometimes surprises me that a clearly honorable gesture would be twisted into a racial issue. I tend to avoid this type of discussion because of the inherent lack of rational but this forum has always been filled with guys that give and take opinion without blocking the truth from the discussion. Advise to us all:Listen more, opine less.

In reference to your "F B M" stereotype comparison, you may want to take that particular issue up with an irresponsible media that rakes in millions in countless TV and Hollywood movies that intend to prick our sensibilities by fostering the conflicts that this type of subject matter provides.

So let me ask you a question: what if our team name was something like the "Fighting Black Men" and our logo was an image of very stereotypical labels thrown on African-Americans (a 40 in a paper bag, drugs in his pocket, sagging pants and a pistol). Would you find that logo to be offensive at all?

Of course, and who wouldn't?
But the Indian on the Braves logo is the depiction of a proud warrior who is actually smiling. Now if you had a drunk Indian casino worker as the logo then you may have a point. But I believe the comparison is way off.

Speaking personally, I think it's dumb to put yourself in a situaiton to have to explain your intentions. Clearly, unless you are a Native American, you don't have perfect knowledge. If this wasn't an issue for Native Americans, then why is there an ongoing legal battle over the Redskins' name?

Of course I dont think there any racial intentions, but clearly some people disagree.

Speaking personally, I think it's dumb to put yourself in a situaiton to have to explain your intentions. Clearly, unless you are a Native American, you don't have perfect knowledge. If this wasn't an issue for Native Americans, then why is there an ongoing legal battle over the Redskins' name?

Of course I dont think there any racial intentions, but clearly some people disagree.

Redskins =/= Braves

Braves were the warrior class. Redskins has racial overtones, it would be akin to having a team named the Blackskins, that name should probably be changed, although when a survey was done within the native american population only six percent had an issue with that name. This was done years ago though.

Speaking personally, I think it's dumb to put yourself in a situaiton to have to explain your intentions. Clearly, unless you are a Native American, you don't have perfect knowledge. If this wasn't an issue for Native Americans, then why is there an ongoing legal battle over the Redskins' name?

Of course I dont think there any racial intentions, but clearly some people disagree.

This is unavoidable in any circumstance. Due to the sensitivity levels of the masses and our seeming unwillingness to discuss certain topics without interjecting personal bias/feigned offense, it is nigh impossible to come to a consensus on any matter. I'm old enough to know that this has not always been the case. Not sure when that changed. IMHO, a legal battle is not exactly the best example of whether some thing is right or wrong.

This is unavoidable in any circumstance. Due to the sensitivity levels of the masses and our seeming unwillingness to discuss certain topics without interjecting personal bias/feigned offense, it is nigh impossible to come to a consensus on any matter. I'm old enough to know that this has not always been the case. Not sure when that changed. IMHO, a legal battle is not exactly the best example of whether some thing is right or wrong.

true, but the debate is over race, not whether or not we should stamp "hot coffee" on all of our coffee cups. If naming a sports team after a certain race offends said race, then why bother naming your team after said race? The same can be said for the logo.

true, but the debate is over race, not whether or not we should stamp "hot coffee" on all of our coffee cups. If naming a sports team after a certain race offends said race, then why bother naming your team after said race? The same can be said for the logo.

If in fact the debate is/was about race then I would agree. That is why intent is key to the argument. Without being present at the decision making discussions it stands to reason that few would have perfect knowledge of why the name "Redskins" was chosen. I get that it could be offensive to some but without consensus to change it, the point becomes moot. I'm sure that we are all offended from time to time and would like to change the culture that spawns the offense but it really doesn't work that way does it?